SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1647

A.K.SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, S.ABDUL NAZEER
Vineeta Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Sharma – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Biswajit Bhattacharya, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Mr. Shankar Narayanan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, Ms. Jyoti Prakash Mohanty, Adv.

ORDER :

1. There is a conflict of opinion in two Division Bench Judgments of this Court i.e. Prakash vs. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343 with regard to interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005.

2. In view thereof, this matter has to be heard by a Bench of three Judge. Though we are sitting in combination of three Judge Bench, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as per which the matter is to be referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and it is for the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a Bench for hearing the matter.

3. We accordingly direct the Registry to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of the Bench.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top